Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
Really? The Amendment was foisted on an unwitting and confused electorate? Was everyone in the country locked incommunicado in a giant pub in the months preceding the vote or something?irishpancake wrote: »The fundamentalists cannot bear this fact
that their own actions, in foisting a Constitutional Amendment, which was intended to ensure there never would be Abortion in Ireland, upon an unwitting and confused electorate, bombarded with the PLAC constant propaganda
Are you claiming that those who oppose abortion have as a cherished treasure a piece of legislation which permits abortion?irishpancake wrote: »that this cherished treasure of theirs, was the method by which Abortion in Ireland became available, in the very restricted circumstances you outlined in your excellent post.
Was that after they regained their wits and became no longer confused?irishpancake wrote: »And the people, in their wisdom, rejected repeated efforts to roll back the SC interpretation.
Leaving aside your own polemic, we know that psychiatrists opinions are a key part of the criteria for the Act; it's been a fairly significant aspect of what we've been talking about on this thread for a while?irishpancake wrote: »A psychologists opinion was accepted by the Irish Supreme Court, in 1983, as satisfying the criteria in which it was lawful for the raped, suicidal, child, Ms "X", to be entitled to have an abortion, in Ireland, to terminate her pregnancy due to her suicide ideation. This is still the law in Ireland, and has been regulated and legislated for, belatedly, grudgingly and unsatisfactorily by the recent Legislation, The Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act.0 -
Brian Shanahan wrote: »You falsely accuse others of doing the same, when that is all you do. That is really low for someone who alleges themselves to be morally superior to their opponents.
No, pro abortionists accused me of being emotive first. I simply responded that your strategy of pushing for referenda when there is an emotive backstory, is a dishonest attempt to subvert the will of voters.
I don't claim to be morally superior to you. You just don't get it.Brian Shanahan wrote: »And before I finally finish with you...
Said like a true (boards.ie) tough guy.Brian Shanahan wrote: »...have you any argument at all (given that everything you've put forward so far was refuted before you put it forward) for banning abortions in all circumstances as you so clearly wish would happen?
Nothing I have said has been refuted. I have made several valid points in this thread going back months, which you lot never address. In fact most of what you do involves misquoting people and bringing the church into the argument.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »Re your abortion-in-the-green thought, probably prompt arrest and detention of any individual silly enough to pull such a stunt for the purposes of playing to the gallery and media. The grounds could be for the physical safety of the person concerned, or for psychiatric evaluation, or for simple law-breaking (your choice). I'd imagine that any self-respecting opponent of abortion might have his/her stomach (and maybe mind) turned by such a stunt by a fellow abortion-opponent.
No, I am not the first to suggest this. Some very well known anti abortion campaigners have suggested that the killing would stop very soon if people had to face up to it.
There would be no danger to person involved if it was done in a sterile glass box. It will never happen because your lot don't like to look at the results of your handy work. Let's consider a more likely scenario, there was a programme two or three years ago which used to show a dissection of a human body, maybe they would screen a late term abortion and you could all watch it. Would you be willing to. Would it affect your viewpoint?aloyisious wrote: »The skewing was not solely by the background story but also by those who have been found to have had a hand or two in the paedophilia and child abuse in the country that you mention. Am I right in seeing your use of the word parish, instead of village or town, as indicative of finger-pointing?
No, you're not right. There was no hidden message in my post. I could have said village, town, county, whatever.aloyisious wrote: »I'm left wondering if, by the way you worded that bit above, you no longer trust what comes from the mouths of persons within the calling to which the paedophiles and child abusers belonged; so, do you distrust them?
Again, I meant what I wrote not what is going on in your head. Are you asking if I distrust BBC presenters? That's what I referred to after all, not that you feel the need to address what I actually said.aloyisious wrote: »Do you also believe that the voter should ignore what comes from the mouths of those who oppose abortion (who were duped by those paedophiles and abusers) because they continue to speak out against abortion for the same reasons used 22 years ago (protection of the baby aka youth defence) as we are wiser now?
Again, I meant what I wrote not what is going on in your head. Your proposition is just another way of attempting to put words in my mouth which I never said, just like Brian Shanahan was doing a few posts back. I believe I've addressed this a few times previously.0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »I don't claim to be morally superior to you. You just don't get it.
Do you claim to be morally superior to a woman that wants an abortion? Serious question.0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »No, I am not the first to suggest this. Some very well known anti abortion campaigners have suggested that the killing would stop very soon if people had to face up to it.
There would be no danger to person involved if it was done in a sterile glass box. It will never happen because your lot don't like to look at the results of your handy work. Let's consider a more likely scenario, there was a programme two or three years ago which used to show a dissection of a human body, maybe they would screen a late term abortion and you could all watch it. Would you be willing to. Would it affect your viewpoint?
How many births have you seen in a glass box in St Stephen's Green? What about Caesareans? Is there a reason why that doesn't happen, do you think, and why would an abortion be more suitable to take place in public?0 -
Advertisement
-
Richard Bingham wrote: »The X case and the referendum which followed it are 22 years old and come from a time when people didn't know what the word pedophile meant or that child abuse was going on under their own noses in every parish in the country but you (the pro abortion side) don't mind relying on that. As far as your concerned anything which helps your argument is fine even if it comes from a time when Jimmy Savile was regarded as a saint. Why don't we throw all the ignorant history to this out and make decisions on what we know today.
If having a referenda around the time of the X case was valid (i.e. it wasn't because people's views were skewed by the background story) then I want to stage a live late term abortion in Stephen's Green next Saturday afternoon, invite all major news channels to cover it and have a referenda on Abortion Yes or No that evening.
What do you think the result would be?
What a confused post.....
What do you think the "X" case was about, if not about a sexually abused child, impregnated by a paedophile sex abuser, a neighbour, who went on to do it again?
From the "X" Judgement:The first defendant is a young girl, now aged fourteen and a half years.
She has a school friend whom she visited regularly. Her friend's parents and her parents were also on friendly terms.
Her parents had no idea that in letting their daughter visit her friend's house she was being placed in physical and in moral danger.
In fact, her statement disclosed that her friend's father is a depraved and evil man.
He began sexually molesting the first defendant when she was less than thirteen years old. Over the months in which it occurred this molestation was continuous and took different forms.
In June, 1990, abuse of a serious nature took place and this occurred again in the early part of 1991.
In December, 1991, her statement records, he had full sexual intercourse with her to which she did not consent.
As a result she became pregnant.
She did not tell anyone of the abuse to which she was being subjected on her visits to her friend's home but on the 27th January last she told her parents everything that had happened.
On that day, following mounting worry and concern by her mother, she and her parents learnt from their local doctor that she was pregnant......
Hederman J. : Child abuse is an abhorrent crime.
The child's expression of wishing death, was it possibly because of the attack or trauma of the assault or abuse rather than because of the pregnancy?
This was not addressed by the State.
The State ought to have addressed this aspect of the case.......
In an affidavit sworn on the 10th February, 1992, the mother of the girl, the third defendant, in the course of her affidavit stated that the first defendant was born on the 15th July, 1977;
that on the 22nd January, 1992, the first defendant complained to her and to her husband that she had been sexually abused for over eighteen months by a close male friend of the family and that on the 7th December, 1991, she "had been raped" by this man.
You have an opinion that people did not know what a paedophile was.
The people involved in the "X" case did, the child's parents, the Judges, and the Lawyers, and of course the sexually abused child victim certainly knew.....
please read from the Judgement above.
I did too, and I was 38 year old man in 1992.
There are virtually no Pro abortion people, as you would like to characterise those in favour of choice.
And it is extremely difficult to make out just what you are trying to say in the emboldened above.
Could you try to rephrase, just so one can have some idea of what your argument is?0 -
Really? The Amendment was foisted on an unwitting and confused electorate? Was everyone in the country locked incommunicado in a giant pub in the months preceding the vote or something?
Are you claiming that those who oppose abortion have as a cherished treasure a piece of legislation which permits abortion?
Was that after they regained their wits and became no longer confused?Leaving aside your own polemic, we know that psychiatrists opinions are a key part of the criteria for the Act; it's been a fairly significant aspect of what we've been talking about on this thread for a while?
Well I can see where irishpancake is coming from. It is undeniable that the 8th amendment was passed after an extremely fraught campaign with massive propaganda from the anti-abortion side. What is interesting is that once the dust had settled on the 8th, and (I assume) people had come to understand the issue a little better and to realise the implications, that no subsequent referendum has passed that would align with anti-abortion values. Permitted to travel - yes. Permitted to have information - yes. Suicide to be removed as justification for abortion - no.0 -
At the time the legislation was being debated, the PLC consistently stated that his legislation would only be used to provide abortions. They stated that the legislation could only allow for abortions, and had no consideration for the "unborn child". This clearly didn't happen. So either the legislation wasn't properly envoked, or PLC lied... a lot.
You can't lie when making a future prediction. If I say that number 4 is going to win the 5.30 at the Curragh and he doesn't I didn't lie. That's the first time I've had to explain that to someone over the age of 4.
We don't even know if the legislation was applied as intended. The guidelines hadn't been issued as far as I know. There is an enquiry to determine this, and I think we'll wait for the result of it. Of course, like with Savita, now is the time for your lot to peddle lies, before the truth comes out.So the PLC would prefer that women be restrained and forced to continue pregnancy? How the hell can they then claim they are supporting both the mother and the "unborn child"? Again, PLC peddling another lie.
No. Like in the Savita case where pro abortionists favour abortion over providing proper care, there are a multitude of things that could be done for this woman, which would reduce her suffering. The pro abortion side don't even mention doing any of these things. Just kill the baby.
The fact is that given the low incidence of pregnancies as a result of rape, the government could afford to provide an extremely high level of care to these women, which would help them to recover. Even if it cost €50,000 per incidence, it would be a drop in the ocean of the funds wasted by the HSE every year. It's ridiculous that something as extreme as killing is considered before any attempt whatsoever is made to improve her circumstances.Link?
Would you not consider that roughly half of unborn babies are female? The sex ratio for the world population is 101 males to 100 females so this is roughly 1:1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio0 -
So Richard would you support a referendum on repealing the right to travel to kill the unborn child in say a year when the emotional response to a pregnant teenage rape victim has subsided? Would you support banning women from traveling to kill the unborn?0
-
irishpancake wrote: »Could you try to rephrase, just so one can have some idea of what your argument is?
I am happy to clarify the the first and second paragraphs are separate comments (both relevant), thus indicated by the separate paragraphs.
The first paragraph was in response to comments by LazygalBut that evidence is 30 years old and comes from a prolife group.
andAny evidence from a more recent source?
which seem to indicate that something which is from a long time ago is of less value. Are you saying this is true for pro abortion arguments but not for pro life? I'm saying its true universally as we gain knowledge with time. However, the nature of the pro life argument doesn't change over time (except that we know even more about the unborn now than we did 20 years ago).irishpancake wrote: »You have an opinion that people did not know what a paedophile was.
I stand by my claim. If you approached 100 people on the street in 1992 and asked them what the word paedophile meant, they wouldn't have been able to tell you. In fact it was only in the 90's that the vast majority of of sexual abuse was uncovered in this country so your hardly claiming that the electorate were well informed are you?
Starting in the 1990s, a series of criminal cases and Irish government enquiries established that hundreds of priests had abused thousands of children in previous decades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Ireland
The second paragraph relates to my argument is that we should make decisions based on what we know now, and not be slaves to a referendum passed in 1992 with the X case (which was very emotive) in the background.irishpancake wrote: »The people involved in the "X" case did, the child's parents, the Judges, and the Lawyers, and of course the sexually abused child victim certainly knew.....
They did indeed, but they weren't the only ones to vote in the referendum and I don't accept that all voters were similarly well informed?
You see if you lot are so against emotion, then fine, lets disregard the X case referendum which was passed in the wake of much emotion.
If, on the other hand, you don't have a problem with bringing emotion into it, then spare a thought for the baby (which as a human I have no doubt you would if you had to watch an abortion, but you'll never do that will you).
Either way try to be consistent.0 -
Advertisement
-
Really? The Amendment was foisted on an unwitting and confused electorate? Was everyone in the country locked incommunicado in a giant pub in the months preceding the vote or something?
Are you claiming that those who oppose abortion have as a cherished treasure a piece of legislation which permits abortion?
Was that after they regained their wits and became no longer confused?Leaving aside your own polemic, we know that psychiatrists opinions are a key part of the criteria for the Act; it's been a fairly significant aspect of what we've been talking about on this thread for a while?
Yes, it was foisted upon us, and with the connivance of cowardly politicians from all Political Parties, who knew just what the particular words could, and eventually did, lead to.
People like Garrett FitzGerald and Peter Sutherland, who caved into the PLAC demands for this Amendment lead by Binchey, who drafted the words, and stuck Charlie Haughey with them, ensured that FG were also stuck
PLAC was, and their successors still are, financed by fundamentalist Right Wing elements in the US.
It was made a done deal, with all the main Right Wing Political Parties supporting this Amendment, which was put to the people, who accepted it.
Those who oppose Choice, the so-called Pro-life side, wanted this Amendment, 40.3.3, as it was designed to ensure that the Dáil could never enact legislation providing for Abortion rights for women in the RoI.
It was their cherished treasure and most ardent wish, and they got it.
I'm not claiming that, they claimed it.
But, they did not anticipate calculate just what happened in "X ", not that they were not warned!!!
Alan Shatter said this, in Dáil Eireann, during the Amendment Campaign debates, in 1983:
.The irony is that I have no doubt, not merely from the interpretation the Attorney General has given but from the other interpretations that can be validly taken from the amendment, that if it in its present form becomes part of our Constitution it will essentially secure a constitutional judgement in the not too distant future requiring the House to enact legislation to permit women to have abortions.
Mad, or what????
Section 40.3.3 was not a piece of legislation, as you seem to think, it was a Constitutional Amendment, which was intended to be unassailable by any legislation, as nothing could be introduced by elected parliamentarians to cater for abortion rights in Ireland, without removing this Amendment, by consultation with the people.
And you know that too.....you need to regain some of your own wits and not pretend to be confused here.
This is your game, to sow confusion to distort historical fact.
Re my reference to a psychologists opinion here:A psychologists opinion was accepted by the Irish Supreme Court, in 1983, as satisfying the criteria in which it was lawful for the raped, suicidal, child, Ms "X", to be entitled to have an abortion, in Ireland, to terminate her pregnancy due to her suicide ideation.
This is still the law in Ireland, and has been regulated and legislated for, belatedly, grudgingly and unsatisfactorily by the recent Legislation, The Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act.
Are you disputing any of those facts, with reference to the "X" case and the recent legislation?
Do you think the Judgement has been put aside?
When was that Referendum??
Please quote anything supporting your opinion if you are saying any of the above.
Do you know that the recent law you refer to, is merely one which regulates and implements the "X", decision of the Irish Supreme Court, belatedly, after 22 years......
...years during which various Governments attempted to overturn the "X" Ruling, that Abortion is legal in Ireland, in the circumstances of that case, a raped, suicidal, and pregnant child whose life was in danger due to her suicide ideation.
Do you dispute any of the above facts, which are in no way polemical, simply a recitation of inconvenient truths you would rather obscure.0 -
Richard do you support the repeal of the right to travel to kill an unborn child?0
-
people had come to understand the issue a little better and to realise the implications, that no subsequent referendum has passed that would align with anti-abortion values. Permitted to travel - yes. Permitted to have information - yes. Suicide to be removed as justification for abortion - no.
It was striking at the time, when the great majority of the Irish people officially subscribed to pro-life ideology, than when given a chance to consistently uphold that ideology by denying Irish women the right to travel for abortions, they ran a mile. For me, this is a clear demonstration that they fully understood the hypocrisy of their position and that deep down they did not want deny women access to safe, legal abortion (effectively on demand) as long as that right was exercised in Pagan England. In fact I would go further and say this was the majority position at the time of the pro-life referendum and even before, and that any attempt to restrict the right to travel at an earlier date would have received a similarly hostile reception.0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »I am happy to clarify the the first and second paragraphs are separate comments (both relevant), thus indicated by the separate paragraphs.
The first paragraph was in response to comments by Lazygal
and
which seem to indicate that something which is from a long time ago is of less value. Are you saying this is true for pro abortion arguments but not for pro life? I'm saying its true universally as we gain knowledge with time. However, the nature of the pro life argument doesn't change over time (except that we know even more about the unborn now than we did 20 years ago).
I stand by my claim. If you approached 100 people on the street in 1992 and asked them what the word paedophile meant, they wouldn't have been able to tell you. In fact it was only in the 90's that the vast majority of of sexual abuse was uncovered in this country so your hardly claiming that the electorate were well informed are you?
Starting in the 1990s, a series of criminal cases and Irish government enquiries established that hundreds of priests had abused thousands of children in previous decades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Ireland
The second paragraph relates to my argument is that we should make decisions based on what we know now, and not be slaves to a referendum passed in 1992 with the X case (which was very emotive) in the background.
They did indeed, but they weren't the only ones to vote in the referendum and I don't accept that all voters were similarly well informed?
You see if you lot are so against emotion, then fine, lets disregard the X case referendum which was passed in the wake of much emotion.
If, on the other hand, you don't have a problem with bringing emotion into it, then spare a thought for the baby (which as a human I have no doubt you would if you had to watch an abortion, but you'll never do that will you).
Either way try to be consistent.I stand by my claim. If you approached 100 people on the street in 1992 and asked them what the word paedophile meant, they wouldn't have been able to tell you. In fact it was only in the 90's that the vast majority of of sexual abuse was uncovered in this country so your hardly claiming that the electorate were well informed are you?
Your claim has no merit, regardless of how many members of the public knew the meaning of the word paedophile, [however most knew what sexual abuse was, and particularly those who suffered at the hands of abusers]
as the only people who mattered in the "X" case were the abused, raped, pregnant, suicidal child, and her family, appealing the AG's injunction, their Lawyers, those for the AG, and their Lordships, the Justices of the Irish Supreme Court.
As for your 100 people, do you have evidence to support this, or is it merely your opinion?
It still did not matter anyway, who knew what the appropriate terminology was for the sexual abuse and impregnation of an under-age child was. Their Lordships were very aware, and ruled accordingly.
I support your contention that something which is from a long time ago is not of less value. Certainly...
which is why the "X" decision from 22 years ago, 1992, is so important, and was seminal in Irish Law, whereby the ISC legalised abortion, in Ireland, for women in a similar situation, and under a threat to their lives due to a continued pregnancy, including the threat of suicide, interpreting the Constitutional Amendment, 20.3.3, inserted 9 years previously, in 1983.
You say:However, the nature of the pro life argument doesn't change over time
which I assume refers to the Argument put by the PLAC, to achieve it's Amendment in 1983??
Leaving aside the fact that using the term "Pro life" to attempt to exclude and portray others as "Anti life" is a distortion of language. I consider myself to be Pro life, and Pro Choice.
Do you accept, however, that the interpretation of what your Amendment, 40.3.3, actually meant, did change, by dint of what the ISC ruled in "X"?
In that they interpreted it as permitting Abortion in Ireland, which most certainly was not the intent of it's promoters, PLAC.
You say:and not be slaves to a referendum passed in 1992 with the X case (which was very emotive) in the background.
What Referendum in 1992 being passed are you referring to here??
Two were passed, those in relation to Travel and Information.
The third, to remove the suicide grounds, was not passed, it was rejected.
Do you think the Amendment, which was inserted into our Constitution, passed by Referendum in 1983, and interpreted by the SC in 1992, in the "X" Appeal, is redundant??
We should dispense with it??
Not be slaves to it??
Which seems to be in direct contravention to your earlier statement that something which is from a long time ago is not of less value??
When you say:They did indeed, but they weren't the only ones to vote in the referendum and I don't accept that all voters were similarly well informed?
in apparent reply to my point about knowledge of sexual abuse:The people involved in the "X" case did, the child's parents, the Judges, and the Lawyers, and of course the sexually abused child victim certainly knew.....
What Referendum are you referring to??
It would be nice to know, seeing as you remark upon my consistency, but, unfortunately you seem to be consistently confused as to Referenda, when they were held, and the results, not to mention SC appeals, and how the Law on Abortion in Ireland was changed by that decision.
Can I submit one more sentence from your even more confused post, and ask you to reflect upon, and perhaps research, just what it is you are attempting to say, if indeed you know.You see if you lot are so against emotion, then fine, lets disregard the X case referendum which was passed in the wake of much emotion.
And perhaps expand on "you lot".0 -
Loafing Oaf wrote: »It was striking at the time, when the great majority of the Irish people officially subscribed to pro-life ideology, than when given a chance to consistently uphold that ideology by denying Irish women the right to travel for abortions, they ran a mile. For me, this is a clear demonstration that they fully understood the hypocrisy of their position and that deep down they did not want deny women access to safe, legal abortion (effectively on demand) as long as that right was exercised in Pagan England. In fact I would go further and say this was the majority position at the time of the pro-life referendum and even before, and that any attempt to restrict the right to travel at an earlier date would have received a similarly hostile reception.
Agreed.
In some ways the 8th amendment didn't really change the status quo, as women were already travelling for abortions. Banning travel though, that would have meant very significant changes for people who needed abortions or who could envisage one day wanting to avail of an abortion.
*Edit* - Not actually correct, as explained by irishpancake below0 -
Agreed.
In some ways the 8th amendment didn't really change the status quo, as women were already travelling for abortions. Banning travel though, that would have meant very significant changes for people who needed abortions or who could envisage one day wanting to avail of an abortion.
The 8th allowed the AG to injunct the pregnant child, who was in the UK, about to have an abortion. On the grounds that on one else would vindicate the right to life of her "unborn", he undertook to do so, in line with Constitutional imperative to uphold both lives.
It was proposed to detain her in Ireland for 9 months, under the injunction.
The parents obeyed the injunction and returned wiuthout the procedure having been carried out.
They appealed to the SC, and the result is the X case judgement, granting for limited abortion rights, in Ireland, on the stated grounds.
It also gave rise to the specific, stated in the Constitution rights of the Rights to travel and information about procedures, abortion, legally available in other States, but not here.
I would submit it was a seminally important Judgement.0 -
@ Richard Bingham. re your and mine quotes/questions....
RB. No, I am not the first to suggest this. Some very well known anti abortion campaigners have suggested that the killing would stop very soon if people had to face up to it.....
A. Response- I note that there has been no actual follow-through on their thoughts though. Maybe wiser heads or a think-through of their suggestions made them realise there was folly in their thoughts.
RB. There would be no danger to person involved if it was done in a sterile glass box.....
A. Response - Actually, I was more thinking that anyone doing what you mentioned might be at physical risk due to a backlash from outraged observers to the scene.
RB. No, you're not right. There was no hidden message in my post. I could have said village, town, county, whatever.....
A. Response - OK. EDIT.. parish, to my mind, is a non-secularly defined area/district within which persons of any particular faith reside and worship.
RB. Again, I meant what I wrote not what is going on in your head. Are you asking if I distrust BBC presenters? That's what I referred to after all, not that you feel the need to address what I actually said.....
A. Response - Sorry, I didn't realise that you were referring to a distrust of BBC reporters, I didn't see that bit in this your quote: As far as your concerned anything which helps your argument is fine even if it comes from a time when Jimmy Savile was regarded as a saint.
RB. Again, I meant what I wrote not what is going on in your head. Your proposition is just another way of attempting to put words in my mouth which I never said, just like Brian Shanahan was doing a few posts back. I believe I've addressed this a few times previously....
A. Response - Actually my questions were not an attempt to put words into your mouth. A lot of people here were mislead by the clergy when it came to Paedophilia and child abuse by members of the clergy, so it seem's reasonable to ask if people who listened-to the clergy on how they should re-act to and vote on the abortion issue, should/may now have doubts about the veracity of that priestly-advice.0 -
@swampgas, irishpancake and whomever: the actual return of the girl's parents with her from Britain before an abortion had been performed has always caused me some surprise. Their actual honesty in not denying knowledge of the injunction and also not arguing it through the UK court system, re whether the actual application of an Irish injunction had legal standing in the UK without it first being given legal recognition by the UK Govt and/or courts.0
-
I don't recall a dearth of pro choice propaganda?Well I can see where irishpancake is coming from. It is undeniable that the 8th amendment was passed after an extremely fraught campaign with massive propaganda from the anti-abortion side.
It has come up on the thread already, but there were those like myself who voted to maintain freedoms such as travel and access to information because we could see a good reason to maintain individual liberties, even if we opposed extending those liberties to dominion over others lives. To claim that the later votes indicate a public about face on the basic abortion issue ignores the fact that they weren't about abortion, they were about other rights that needed to be protected. In fact the one Amendment of the three that specifically was about liberalising abortion didn't pass. You may think you know why people voted as they did, but if the zeitgeist had changed so enormously it's a bit strange that people didn't take the opportunity to change the constitution when it was presented, and politicians didn't spot the new public view and leap to be heroes of the people by proposing a new referendum on the 8th.What is interesting is that once the dust had settled on the 8th, and (I assume) people had come to understand the issue a little better and to realise the implications, that no subsequent referendum has passed that would align with anti-abortion values. Permitted to travel - yes. Permitted to have information - yes. Suicide to be removed as justification for abortion - no.0 -
So all these politicians we voted for ganged up together, and forced us to vote for something we actually wanted to vote against? Sorry. I don't remember anyone putting a gun to my head when I voted.irishpancake wrote: »Yes, it was foisted upon us, and with the connivance of cowardly politicians from all Political Parties, who knew just what the particular words could, and eventually did, lead to.
Or, we held a referendum, a majority supported a position you disagree with, and you think it was a conspiracy.irishpancake wrote: »People like <....> which was put to the people, who accepted it.
But I voted for the Amendment, and I never claimed it? It was neither a treasure (cherished or otherwise) or an ardent wish; it was an opportunity ensure that abortion could only be introduced in Ireland by the will of the people rather than by a government act of legislation.irishpancake wrote: »Those who oppose Choice, the so-called Pro-life side, wanted this Amendment, 40.3.3, as it was designed to ensure that the Dáil could never enact legislation providing for Abortion rights for women in the RoI. It was their cherished treasure and most ardent wish, and they got it. I'm not claiming that, they claimed it.
Indeed. I was expecting some prophetic vision from your prelude. The fact that he foresaw a need to make legislative changes to accommodate the Constitutional Amendment is hardly shocking.irishpancake wrote: »But, they did not anticipate calculate just what happened in "X ", not that they were not warned!!! Alan Shatter said this, in Dáil Eireann, during the Amendment Campaign debates, in 1983:
Mad, or what????
Well, since I've referred to the Constitution 19 times on this thread, I don't know how you imagine that I think it's not a Constitutional Amendment, which was introduced because the people voted for it (as confused as you think they were when they did it).irishpancake wrote: »It was not a piece of legislation,as you seem to think, it was a Constitutional Amendment, which was intended to be unassailable by any legislation, as nothing could be introduced by elected parliamentarians to cater for abortion rights in Ireland, without removing this Amendment, by consultation with the people.
Aha! So you knew I knew it was a Constitutional Amendment! Were you trying to confuse me?irishpancake wrote: »And you know that too.....you need to regain some of your own wits and not pretend to be confused here.
You mean by claiming everyone made a mistake because they were terribly confused, but regained their senses later in order to fix a little of what they'd done but not all of it?irishpancake wrote: »This is your game, to sow confusion to distort historical fact.
I think in your confusion you may have missed it when I said we know that psychiatrists opinions are a key part of the criteria for the Act; it's been a fairly significant aspect of what we've been talking about on this thread for a while?irishpancake wrote: »Re my reference to a psychologists opinion here: Are you disputing any of those facts, with reference to the "X" case and the recent legislation? Do you think the Judgement has been put aside? When was that Referendum?? Please quote anything supporting your opinion if you are saying any of the above.
Ah so you didn't miss it! So why do you think no one knows about the X Case?irishpancake wrote: »Do you know that the recent law you refer to, is merely one which regulates and implements the "X", decision of the Irish Supreme Court, belatedly, after 22 years
Again, if you were to read through the thread I don't think you'll find anyone has asserted that abortion conducted under the conditions set out in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act is not legal. It would be a somewhat silly assertion given that the Act has been a substantial part of the discussion.irishpancake wrote: »years during which various Governments attempted to overturn the "X" Ruling, that Abortion is legal in Ireland, in the circumstances of that case, a raped, suicidal, and pregnant child whose life was in danger due to her suicide ideation.
Can you point out any occasion on which I have attempted to obscure any facts? Or even given the impression that I might find a fact inconvenient?irishpancake wrote: »Do you dispute any of the above facts, which are in no way polemical, simply a recitation of inconvenient truths you would rather obscure.0 -
Advertisement
-
For me it's a clear demonstration that we are capable of thinking about more than one thing at once. The right of freedom to travel should not be limited based on the possible intention of a person to commit a act outside the state which the state asserts no jurisdiction over. I'm sure it would be nice to think that most people wanted to take a hypocritical position on abortion, but there's no reason to think so other than bias. I oppose abortion in many circumstances. I oppose limiting individual liberties in many circumstances. I absolutely do not think that England is where Irish people should go to have abortions, but I absolutely do not believe Ireland can tell people what to do in other countries, or assume it knows and pre-emptively try to do so.Loafing Oaf wrote: »It was striking at the time, when the great majority of the Irish people officially subscribed to pro-life ideology, than when given a chance to consistently uphold that ideology by denying Irish women the right to travel for abortions, they ran a mile. For me, this is a clear demonstration that they fully understood the hypocrisy of their position and that deep down they did not want deny women access to safe, legal abortion (effectively on demand) as long as that right was exercised in Pagan England. In fact I would go further and say this was the majority position at the time of the pro-life referendum and even before, and that any attempt to restrict the right to travel at an earlier date would have received a similarly hostile reception.0 -
I don't recall a dearth of pro choice propaganda?
It has come up on the thread already, but there were those like myself who voted to maintain freedoms such as travel and access to information because we could see a good reason to maintain individual liberties, even if we opposed extending those liberties to dominion over others lives. To claim that the later votes indicate a public about face on the basic abortion issue ignores the fact that they weren't about abortion, they were about other rights that needed to be protected. In fact the one Amendment of the three that specifically was about liberalising abortion didn't pass. You may think you know why people voted as they did, but if the zeitgeist had changed so enormously it's a bit strange that people didn't take the opportunity to change the constitution when it was presented, and politicians didn't spot the new public view and leap to be heroes of the people by proposing a new referendum on the 8th.
OK, tell us:In fact the one Amendment of the three that specifically was about liberalising abortion didn't pass.
What proposed Amendment was that? Year/Number will do, or any reference.
I can help, here is a list of failed Amendments.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_failed_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Ireland
Which one?? In fact??0 -
Eh, this one, the Twelfth which proposed to Constitutionally emplace the mothers right to abortion in the event of a threat to her life, which to this day remains only a right conferred by judgement rather than a Constitutional one.irishpancake wrote: »OK, tell us:
What proposed Amendment was that? Year/Number will do, or any reference.
I can help, here is a list of failed Amendments.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_failed_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Ireland
Which one?? In fact??0 -
I saw this report in today's online Irish Times. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/both-sides-of-abortion-debate-air-views-in-dublin-demonstrations-1.1906377
The last 4 Para's read....... Dr Eoghan de Faoite of Youth Defence said the baby was “once a perfectly healthy baby boy living in the womb of a physically healthy mother” and “will now face a lifetime of medical complications…all because of the cruel, barbaric and fundamentally flawed abortion act”.
Dr de Faoite said the baby was not the only victim of the law.
“His mother was also failed by the State, failed by the Government and failed by the Irish Family Planning Association, whose so-called services she availed of throughout her pregnancy.”
He said the young woman was not properly treated, and medical personnel should have addressed her mental health status. Counseling, psychotherapy and psychotropic medication “if she needed it” was the “correct treatment for suicidality, not abortion”.
The report make's no mention of whether Dr de Faoite was asked if he thought a termination by way of caesarean section was the correct treatment for suicidality, or if he was and he replied, the answer is not printed in the report. As for the treatment he feel's should have been provided for the mother's mental health, I await the HSE report and/or leaks to the media on whether/what mental health treatment she got both prior-to and after the operation. He apparently think's she was denied mental health treatment.
Also http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/anger-on-the-streets-as-rival-abortion-groups-rally-at-gpo-30531653.html. Funny-peculiar how the two news reports have differing attendance-numbers. I/T 800 at Pro-choice & more at Pro-life, I/I over 1000 at Pro-choice and 500 at Pro-life.0 -
The pro-life "solution" to every single pregnancy is remaining pregnant. If I had a diagnosis of FFA they'd tell me to stay pregnant. If I was pregnant through rape they'd tell me to stay pregnant. If I would face health issues because I was pregnant they'd tell me to stay pregnant. They can dress it up with terms like support and counselling but no matter what they suggest they want all pregnant women to remain pregnant, regardless of individual circumstances.
I'm still awaiting clarification on whether those on the pro-life side want to repeal the right of pregnant women to travel for the express purpose of killing the unborn.0 -
Eh, this one
which proposed to Constitutionally emplace the mothers right to abortion in the event of a threat to her life, which to this day remains only a right conferred by judgement rather than a Constitutional one."The Twelfth Amendment was a failed proposal to amend the Constitution of Ireland, to state that the risk of suicide should not be considered a sufficient reason to legally allow an abortion. It was rejected in the 1992 referendum on abortion and the risk of suicide."
Your own link says that the 12th was a proposition to remove the right to an abortion in the case of suicide. How was that an attempt at liberalizing the law?0 -
Opinion-piece in the Indo by Sinead O'Connor... http://www.independent.ie/opinion/we-need-a-revolution-and-a-second-republic-of-ireland-30531673.html (dodge the ads to read the end of her piece).0
-
Really? I didn't see the word remove in there at all?Your own link says that the 12th was a proposition to remove the right to an abortion in the case of suicide. How was that an attempt at liberalizing the law?
But if it as you say, then perhaps you can point out the section of the Constitution that at the time asserted the right to an abortion in the case of suicide?
The Amendment would have conferred a Constitutional right to abortion in the event that it was necessary to save the life of an expectant mother, where she was suffering from an illness or disorder, but excluding where her life was threatened by suicide. So we would have gone from no Constitutional right to abortion, to a limited Constitutional right to abortion, which would have been a liberalisation of abortion, as I said.0 -
SBP headline today, UK move to limit Irish abortions0
-
Advertisement
-
The Amendment would have conferred a Constitutional right to abortion in the event that it was necessary to save the life of an expectant mother, where she was suffering from an illness or disorder, but excluding where her life was threatened by suicide. So we would have gone from no Constitutional right to abortion, to a limited Constitutional right to abortion, which would have been a liberalisation of abortion, as I said.
A referendum isn't required to make a Supreme Court judgement constitutional. For example, in 1973 the Supreme Court found that citizens have a constitutional right to marital privacy, and that right continues to exist there though there's never been a referendum on that since.
Whether the right is explicitly stated in the Consitutuonal or one found to exist by the Courts, the net effect is the same; it is a constitutional right. The 12th amendment wasn't about putting parts of the Supreme Court judgement into the Constitution, it was about limiting the constitutional rights that the Supreme Court determined existed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement